University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 8-28-2008 A Longitudinal Study: The mpI act of a Comprehensive Emergency Management System on Disaster Response in The ommonC wealth of The ahB amas Erin P. Hughey University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons Scholar Commons Citation Hughey, Erin P., "A Longitudinal Study: The mpI act of a Comprehensive Emergency Management System on Disaster Response in The ommonC wealth of The ahB amas" (2008). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/308 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Longitudinal Study: The Impact of a Comprehensive Emergency Management System on Disaster Response in The Commonwealth of The Bahamas by Erin P. Hughey A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Geography & Environmental Science and Policy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Graham A Tobin, Ph.D. Kevin Archer, Ph.D. Thomas Mason, Ph.D. Steven Reader, Ph.D. Elizabeth Strom, Ph.D. Date of Approval: August 28, 2008 Keywords: Disaster management, hazards, risk, vulnerability, human geography © Copyright 2008, Erin P. Hughey Dedication This research is dedicated to the staff of The Bahamas National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). Acknowledgements I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to the many individuals who have assisted during my journey to produce this dissertation. Above all, I would like to thank Dr. Graham A. Tobin, my advisor and friend for his continued support and guidance. You allowed me to explore my research in a way that facilitated its growth and development. Always available to listen to my latest challenges and successes, I would not have been able to accomplish this without you. Thank you does not seem like enough. I would like to thank my committee member Dr. Thomas Mason, for providing me with the opportunity to engage in research in the Bahamas and for his continued guidance along the way. The avenues for success that you have provided to me will not be wasted. I would like to thank my committee member Dr. Elizabeth Strom for teaching me to more carefully reflect on the language that I choose. Your contributions have aided in making this research a stronger and more comprehensive product. I would like to thank my committee member Dr. Kevin Archer for his support when I felt like I would never make it to the finish line. You have taught me to embrace the shades of gray that exist, no longer should it be only black and white. I would like to thank my committee member Dr. Steven Reader for his insightful feedback, comments, and dedication in working with me to reshape the way in which I viewed my data and my dissertation. I have a stronger dissertation because of it. In addition to my committee members I would like to thank the staff of The Bahamas National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) for their support of this research. Through endless days of archival research, interviews, surveys, and the national response to three major hurricanes, the NEMA staff has strengthened my commitment to the importance of this research. A very special thank you is extended to the following individuals: Mr. Carl F. Smith; Ms. Gayle Outten-Moncur; Mr. Luke Bethel; Ms. Eleanor Davis; Mr. Wendell Rigby; and Ms. Chrystal Glinton. I would also like to thank my family for their encouragement during this process: Francis William Hughey, Jr.; Martha J. Hughey; Jessica A. Santillo; Sara J. Mercer; MaryRuth Briggs; Amy K. Cronk; Francis William Hughey III; Joseph A. Hughey; Joseph W. Green Sr.; Bonnie Green; and Lara McNeil. Most of all, I would like to thank my husband, Joseph W. Green Jr., for his endless support and encouragement. You have been patient, understanding, and loving throughout this process. I look forward to providing you with the same love and support as you embark on your journey towards a Ph.D. Thank You! Table of Contents List of Tables vii List of Figures xiii Abstract xiv Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Research Goals and Objectives 3 1.2.1 Research Objectives 4 1.3 Background 4 1.4 Study Site: The Geography of The Bahamas 5 1.4.1 Climate 6 1.4.2 Geology 7 1.4.3 The Bahamas Hydrologic Setting 8 1.4.4 Demographics 10 1.4.5 Political Structure 15 1.4.6 Economy 16 1.4.7 Hurricane Risk 19 1.4.7.1 The Bahamas Hurricane History 20 1.4.7.2 Hurricane Andrew 1992 26 1.4.7.3 Hurricane Floyd 1999 27 1.4.7.4 Hurricane Michelle 2001 27 1.4.7.5 Hurricane Frances 2004 28 1.4.7.6 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 30 1.4.7.7 Hurricane Wilma 2005 31 1.5 Problem Statement 31 1.6 Research Questions 32 1.7 Research Hypotheses 32 1.8 Research Design 33 1.9 Organization of the Dissertation 33 Chapter Two: Literature Review 35 2.1 Introduction 35 i 2.2 History of Hazards Research in Geography 36 2.3 Hazards Terminology 37 2.3.1 Defining the Field of Natural Hazards 39 2.3.1.1 Defining Disaster 40 2.3.1.2 Defining Risk 43 2.3.1.3 Defining Vulnerability 46 2.3.2 Phases of Emergency Management 48 2.3.2.1 Mitigation 49 2.3.2.2 Preparedness 52 2.3.2.3 Response 53 2.3.2.4 Recovery 54 2.4 Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) 54 2.5 Theoretical Frameworks in Hazards Research 59 2.5.1 Hazards-of-Place Model 59 2.5.2 Pressure and Release Model (PAR) 62 2.6 Local Response to Disasters 64 2.6.1 Exploring the Model of Community Response to Disasters 67 2.7 Discussion 69 Chapter Three: Study Design & Methods 70 3.1 Introduction 70 3.2 Background 71 3.2.1 Research Objectives 72 3.2.2 Research Questions 72 3.2.3 Selection of the Six Study Hurricanes 73 3.3 Methods 74 3.3.1 Data Collection Tools 75 3.3.1.1 Archival Research 75 3.3.1.2 Structured Survey Data 78 3.3.1.3 Semi-Structured Interviews 80 3.3.1.4 Participant Observation 83 3.4 Data Application and Analysis 85 3.4.1 Standard Statistical Analysis of Survey and Interview Data 86 ii 3.4.2 Measuring The Bahamas National Response to Hurricanes: Andrew 1992), Floyd (1999), Michelle (2001), Frances (2004), Jeanne (2004) and Wilma (2005) 86 3.4.2.1 Eight Criteria for Evaluating the Management of Disaster Response Operations within The Bahamas 90 3.4.3 The Model of Community Response to Disasters 102 3.5 Strengths and Limitations to the Study Design 105 3.6 Summary 105 Chapter Four: Results, Application of Quarantelli’s Criteria for Evaluating Response 107 4.1 Introduction 107 4.2 Examination and Application of Quarantelli’s Eight Criteria 109 4.2.1 Criterion One: Adequately Carrying Out Generic Functions 109 4.2.1.1 Hurricane Andrew 1992 Criterion One 112 4.2.1.2 Hurricane Floyd 1999 Criterion One 119 4.2.1.3 Hurricane Michelle 2001 Criterion One 126 4.2.1.4 Hurricane Frances 2004 Criterion One 133 4.2.1.5 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 Criterion One 147 4.2.1.6 Hurricane Wilma 2005 Criterion One 156 4.2.1.7 Criterion One Summary 163 4.2.2 Criterion Two: Effectively Mobilizing Personnel and Resources 164 4.2.2.1 Hurricane Andrew 1992 Criterion Two 164 4.2.2.2 Hurricane Floyd 1999 Criterion Two 165 4.2.2.3 Hurricane Michelle 2001 Criterion Two 166 4.2.2.4 Hurricane Frances 2004 Criterion Two 167 4.2.2.5 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 Criterion Two 167 4.2.2.6 Hurricane Wilma 2005 Criterion Two 168 4.2.2.7 Criterion Two Summary 169 4.2.3 Criterion Three: Allow the Adequate Processing of Information 169 4.2.3.1 Hurricane Andrew 1992 Criterion Three 170 4.2.3.2 Hurricane Floyd 1999 Criterion Three 172 4.2.3.3 Hurricane Michelle 2001 Criterion Three 173 4.2.3.4 Hurricane Frances 2004 Criterion Three 175 iii 4.2.3.5 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 Criterion Three 177 4.2.3.6 Hurricane Wilma 2005 Criterion Three 179 4.2.3.7 Criterion Three Summary 180 4.2.4 Criterion Four: Permit the Proper Exercise of Decision-Making 180 4.2.4.1 Hurricane Andrew 1992 Criterion Four 181 4.2.4.2 Hurricane Floyd 1999 Criterion Four 182 4.2.4.3 Hurricane Michelle 2001 Criterion Four 183 4.2.4.4 Hurricane Frances 2004 Criterion Four 184 4.2.4.5 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 Criterion Four 185 4.2.4.6 Hurricane Wilma 2005 Criterion Four 186 4.2.4.7 Criterion Four Summary 186 4.2.5 Criterion Five: Focus on the Development of Overall Coordination 187 4.2.5.1 Hurricane Andrew 1992 Criterion Five 188 4.2.5.2 Hurricane Floyd 1999 Criterion Five 189 4.2.5.3 Hurricane Michelle 2001 Criterion Five 189 4.2.5.4 Hurricane Frances 2004 Criterion Five 189 4.2.5.5 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 Criterion Five 190 4.2.5.6 Hurricane Wilma 2005 Criterion Five 191 4.2.5.7 Criterion Five Summary 191 4.2.6 Criterion Six: Correctly Recognizing Differences Between Response and Agent-Generated Demands 192 4.2.7 Criterion Seven: Provide the Mass Communication System with Appropriate and Accurate Information 193 4.2.7.1 Hurricane Andrew 1992 Criterion Seven 194 4.2.7.2 Hurricane Floyd 1999 Criterion Seven 194 4.2.7.3 Hurricane Michelle 2001 Criterion Seven 195 4.2.7.4 Hurricane Frances 2004 Criterion Seven 196 4.2.7.5 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 Criterion Seven 197 4.2.7.6 Hurricane Wilma 2005 Criterion Seven 198 4.2.7.7 Criterion Seven Summary 198 4.2.8 Criterion Eight: Have a Well-Functioning Emergency Operations Center (EOC) 199 4.2.8.1 Hurricane Andrew 1992 Criterion Eight 199 4.2.8.2 Hurricane Floyd 1999 Criterion Eight 201